whitneymathews.com

It's not fair to be on Weight Watchers and go see this movie.

It's also not fair that Meryl Streep embodies this much acting talent.

Julie & Julia is Nora Ephron's adaptation of two best-selling memoirs, My Life in France by Julia Child and Julia Powell's Julie & Julia. The film intertwines the true stories of two women who, though in separate times, find their way through emotional turmoil through cooking. That means I could go crazy with food puns here, but I'll spare you.

Amy Adams plays author Julie Powell, a woman whose job is to sit in a cubicle in lower Manhattan and help 9-11 victims and their families solve the "long line and red tape" issues related to the attack. Jesus. Who wouldn't be depressed?

Powell begins a blog where she decides to tackle every recipe in Mastering the Art of French Cooking in 365 days. Yikes.

This story is mirrored with Child's journey from bored government wife in post-war Paris to chef to published author. People who aren't familiar with Child may think Streep is overdoing it, but I think she nails this role (which could easily be overdone). The difference between overacting and Streep's performance is that Child is already an American hero of the kitchen, long embraced for her personality. People will find the same familiar love of food and fun in Streep's performance. 

Keep your eyes open for the camera tricks to make Streep look like a giant. The sets were built low and extras were cast below a certain height to make the average-height Streep appear taller.

Along with being a bio pic, this is a love story, too. Stanley Tucci's portrayal of Paul Child gives us girls something to gush at. To be loved the way that Paul loved Julia is what it means to have true companion, partner in crime, and unconditional support system. However, watching these two make out after seeing them together in The Devil Wears Prada is kind of like watching your parents kiss. It's cute but it's... ishy.

Overall, Ephron merges the two lives quite well and tells two compelling, inspiring stories. And don't forget the gratuitous food shots. (cue my stomach growling...) I also wouldn't be surprised if you hear Streep's name when it's time for the Oscar's.

Final fun fact: To date this is the first major motion picture based on a blog.

Author's Note: This may or may not be my last movie review for awhile. My life is getting way too busy, and I need to cut back on extras wherever possible. I hope I ended this part of the blog on a good note (for now) and that you all continue to check out reviews every week at Scene-Stealers.

Photo: Universal PicturesFunny People is the latest flick from the Judd Apatow comedy fraternity, but only his third time with the title as writer/director (40-Year-Old Virgin, Knocked Up).

Unfortunately, it doesn't measure up to his previous projects.

Adam Sandler plays George Simmons, an angry, famous, and lonely comedian who finds out he has a rare, aggressive form of Leukemia. He hires struggling comic Ira Wright (Seth Rogan) to be his personal assistant/joke writing partner until his seemingly unavoidable death.

The big laughs come from the supporting cast. Jonah Hill, Jason Schwartzman, Aubrey Plaza, and Eric Bana give us some of the Apatow comedy we're used to. The exchanges between Rogan, Hill, and Schwartzman were bright spots ("I can't help it if your grandfather is playing backgammon with Hitler right now.")

Scenes with the actors performing stand-up in comedy clubs added a lot for me. Nothing is better than a good stand-up joke.

That being said, I was really cheering for Sandler to come out swinging with some fresh jokes, but between dramatic scenes he reverts back to the same old Billy Madison-esque noises and Opera Man-style singing. It occurred to me that maybe Apatow wrote the movie this way (the two were actually roommates at the time Sandler became famous), but even if he did I couldn't help but think "it's getting old."

One last thing that just didn't work... I'm tired of seeing Apatow's family in every movie. Leslie Mann (Laura) is, once again, cast as the quirky, unusually hot wife. His two kids, once again, play Mann's kids. I'm not one to bag on children, but the nepotism doesn't work in this movie. His kids have outgrown the "adorable all the time" phase, and I didn't think Mann's performance was good enough to carry the last half of the story.

Overall, I laughed (a lot), but the last 45 minutes of the movie felt awkward and were pretty boring. It's probably worth a $10 ticket ($20 if you live on a coast - yay Midwest!) but you shouldn't expect the same quality we got in Apatow's previous flicks.

Photo: Fox SearchlightHave you ever loved someone more than they loved you back? Do you remember the sleepless nights? Willing your phone to ring? The seemingly endless games sprinkled with moments of hope?

Prepare yourself for two hours of that - and I'm not spoiling it for you. The script (if you watch the trailer below) is very blunt about how the story ends.

(500) Days of Summer stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Brick, 3rd Rock from the Sun) and Zooey Deschanel (Almost Famous, The Happening) as star-crossed lovers... kind of.

Gordon-Levitt plays Tom Hansen, a hopeless romantic endlessly searching for The One. He meets Summer Finn (Deschanel) and falls hard. Like face-plant-into-concrete-without-a-safety-net hard. She doesn't. In fact, she's open about her disbelief in love and relationships.

Directed by Marc Webb with writers Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber, (500) Days of Summer is marketed as a romantic comedy, but to me is a dissection of emotional pain caused by unrequited love. However, I laughed through the whole thing (I cried, too. I mean... I am a girl after all).

The movie begins with the couple's breakup and flashes back and forward in time, giving you the story in tiny spoonfulls. By the time you get the complete picture, you can't decide whose side you're on... or if there's a side to take. But love is a motherf**ker, isn't it?

Thank gosh that Gordon-Levitt grew up, cut his hair, and flexed his chops in Brick, because he was great in this role. As was Deschanel, who was beyond horrible in The Happening (or maybe that movie was just a crap sandwich). We should also take some time to talk about how stupid cute Deschanel is. Her perfect little dresses and blouses and hair. Hate her, but love her.

The hardest part about watching this movie is empathizing with Tom. I've been there. I've liked/loved someone who didn't feel the same way. Reliving those feelings is embarrassing and depressing, but there's also relief in knowing everyone else has felt your pain.

I'm not sure if this is a good date movie. I suppose one of two things will happen: awkward silence or affirmation of your feelings for each other. Either way, I recommend you see it. It's one of my favorite summer movies since Brothers Bloom. It's not as good as Bloom, but charming nonetheless.

Watch the trailer below.

[sigh]

This is not going to be easy. As a long-time Harry Potter evangelist, I've got to confess... there is good news, and there is bad news. I reviewed this in two parts the first is more warm and fuzzy for those of you who don't want to believe this movie has flaws.

Here is my "good news" review:

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is finally here! The same old cast returns with some pretty great additions (Freddie Stroma as Cormac McLeggan and Jim Broadbent as Professor Slughorn) for their sixth year at Hogwarts. Voldemort is alive and well - as are his Death Eater buddies, who are causing serious trouble for wizards and muggles alike.

We left HP in Order of the Phoenix just after he learned of the prophecy told at the time of his birth ("neither can live while the other survives" or something like that). HBP picks up a few weeks later. Dark times for wizards. Everyone is in danger.

The Half-Blood Prince (the book) does a masterful job setting up the dramatic, tragic, perfectly-woven conclusion to this series. The Half-Blood Prince (the movie) does not... see why below.

The acting is greatly improved in this movie, though. Dan Radcliffe is flexing his chops. One scene in particular (when he downs some Liquid Luck) stands out, proving he has started taking his craft quite seriously.

Jim Broadbent is also a fantastic addition. I was amazed by his performance. Professor Slughorn is a tricky role to play, and Broadbent definitely delivered the disguised regret necessary to pull off the character.

That at least gives me hope for Deathly Hallows.

Visually the film is stunning. Even when you're pissed about the s**tty script choices, you'll have something pretty to look at.

That's the end of my good review. If you don't wanna hear the bad news, then stop reading now!

****SPOILER ALERT! PLOT SPOILERS FROM HERE FORWARD!****

For HP book fans, however, this movie will be like eating a giant cheeseburger that leaves you starving.

Unfortunately for serious book fans, HBP eliminates some of (what I think are) the most crucial character development storylines. Specifically, the entire flashback series of Voldemort's mother, father, love potion, orphanage thing isn't even mentioned. Also, the actual "half-blood prince" potions book plotline is barely developed.

These two sub-plots provide details that not only enhance Snape and Voldemort as characters, but give deep insight into their emotional struggles. These stories tell us why Snape and Voldemort are who they are. Without those details, their some of their actions make no sense to filmgoers who haven't read the books.

It feels like the filmmakers took the easiest path. They picked out the most marketable movie moments from HBP (the book) - teenage lust, quidditch, cool magic special effects - to create a cash cow. But the way they've done it gives birth to a Swiss cheese-style flick. Also, the way they put these major moments together makes the two-part finale (Deathly Hallows) completely predictable.

I guess the book fans are supposed to spend an hour explaining the missing details (WTF are those people in the water? Why did HP freak out when he touched that ring? Wait so Ginny and Harry...? Why did Snape make the unbreakable vow if he isn't on the dark side?) to their friends who care about understanding the plot in full.

****MAJOR SPOILER ALERT****

My final beef is with the Dumbledore death scene. WTF were they thinking here?

In the book, Harry is defenseless when Snape avada kedavra's Dumbledore. He is under his invisibility cloak and Dumbledore has paralyzed him. He couldn't do anything to stop Dumbledore's death, even if people knew he was there.

In the movie, he stands silently under the floor and watches the whole thing happen after Snape finds him and tells him to shush up.

I call serious bullsh*t on that. No way would HP stand quietly and watch his mentor get zapped by the Death Eaters. No f**king way. HP is not the kind of hero who would allow that to happen.

The only reason he doesn't do anything in the book is because he physically can't. HP isn't going to b**tch out because Helena Bonham Carter has her wand drawn with her hair all bat-sh*t crazy. Sorry. Not buying it.

Sorry that I have high expectations, but you can successfully adapt a detailed sci-fi book to the big screen (Lord of the Rings).

OK, now that you know, feel free to tell me I'm wrong in the comments.

Update on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 at 8:55AM by Whitney Mathews

I'm not the only one who feels this way! Watch Eric and HP lover JD from Scene-Stealers reiterate my points. Read Eric's text review, too, though be warned... his is much more scathing than mine.